Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 117
Like Tree3Likes

Thread: Universe is like a 3D Rainbow (New Proposal)

  1. #1 Universe is like a 3D Rainbow (New Proposal) 
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    M-DIMENSIOM


    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    My honest opinion ? A wall of text, in the style of pop-sci, liberally interspersed with errors, devoid of any scientific content or value.
    Sorry.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    This does not belong in Links. It is neither informative nor useful.

    Moved to New Hypotheses.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    My honest opinion ? A wall of text, in the style of pop-sci, liberally interspersed with errors, devoid of any scientific content or value.
    Sorry.
    Please, could you tell me which errors?
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    This does not belong in Links. It is neither informative nor useful.

    Moved to New Hypotheses.
    Is it possible to link it as a blog to discuss?
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Any discussion on this topic will be in this thread. It's as close to a blog discussion as we get.

    If people aren't interested, then there won't be any discussion. Just as if it were a blog post that didn't get any comments.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    ABSTRACT

    Our known Universe (between 10^-35 & 10^+27 meters) is a small band within the total GlobalUniverse scale spectrum, which, inprinciple, can be infinite.

    Our Universe is a "bubble"else of the many that exist in a larger scale than ours, within the Global Universe, and which also hadtheir own Big Bangat different times.

    Althoughthe Underlying Fundamental Laws are thesame for all spectra and ranges of the Global Universe, they manifest differently through them.

    For thedifferent bands of thespectrum of the 3D Rainbow may dominate different stimuli and waves,different fields andforces. And can beformed different entities and bodies. Parallel Universes can coexist in differentScale Levels(Also within the Planck Volume).

    Different levels of scales can beconsidered PhysicalOpen Systems, and this wouldmean that there could be an exchange of energy between them.

    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Where is the evidence for this "theory"?
    What quantitative predictions does this "theory" make that can be tested against observation or experiment?
    Why should anyone take this seriously?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Seen this nonsense before.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Looks like crap is increasing with time elapsing for us in this forum...whats your definition of rainbow? Can someone take this to the trash can?
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Where is the evidence for this "theory"?
    What quantitative predictions does this "theory" make that can be tested against observation or experiment?
    Why should anyone take this seriously?
    You can read the last part (SEARCH FOR EVIDENDES ABOUT THE 3D RAINBOW) were it is decribed different ways to get evidences.

    But the important is ithat this proposal could give a coherent idea, and give a possibility that didnīt break with the current mainstream ideas...but gives a wider choice and
    greatest potential ... to improve.
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Seen this nonsense before.
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    Looks like crap is increasing with time elapsing for us in this forum...whats your definition of rainbow? Can someone take this to the trash can?
    Ok I know I make a similar proposal some months ago...but now it is improved and polished (??)

    I only would like to know if there are there any mistake or error... that may contradict accepted and tested hypotheses.
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Ok I know I make a similar proposal some months ago...but now it is improved and polished (??)
    There's an old saying, which, while it was disproved by Mythbusters, is still apropo.

    You can't shine shit.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Explain your idea to me in one sentence.
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    Explain your idea to me in one sentence.
    There can be other Universes Out of the limits of Our Univese, as well in the larg, and in the small...Universe inside or within the Planck Volume...and infnite times !!!

    Our Universe is an OPEN SYSTEM (no closed as now it is suposed)..and can exchange energy...and matter.

    Pleas, read post 7:

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/new-h...tml#post372568
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Ok I know I make a similar proposal some months ago...but now it is improved and polished (??)
    There's an old saying, which, while it was disproved by Mythbusters, is still apropo.

    You can't shine shit.
    Shit is in many places...You really smell like shit!
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    So, no evidence, no math, no theory.

    As so many people have pointed out that this is just meaningless nonsense, I'm not sure why you are still wasting time on it.

    Just think what you could have done with that time: study science, learn some math, do something useful.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    This is not a theory nor a hypothesis.

    It's unbalanced speculation, nothing more. There's nothing wrong with speculation and wondering. At times, I wonder if our Universe is something that stands apart or something that exists within. I don't talk about it much because it's just idle speculation. It's not something we can test right now.
    If you want to discuss it, you must first recognize it as mostly baseless speculation and not science but philosophy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    So, no evidence, no math, no theory.

    As so many people have pointed out that this is just meaningless nonsense, I'm not sure why you are still wasting time on it.

    Just think what you could have done with that time: study science, learn some math, do something useful.
    During this time I learn a lot of the "State of the Art" physics...thanks to you and a lot of other people...and reading books and internet info.

    And every time I have more clear that what this article says is true ... and that the evidence will come in the next few years ... by following the lines I propose in the last section of the article.

    And one of the things that make me believe that the content of the article is correct, is that no one has been able to show any evidence or demostration contrary (against) to it. All deny it, say it sucks, it makes no sense ... but do not give any reasoning to prove or demonstrate that it is not true ... It is strange no?

    I would like to challenge all those who believe that their content is incorrect, that give some reasoning against .... or better any evidence or proof.

    I'm going to listen gladly .... but they do not tell me "that also pink elephants can fly around a black hole ..."
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    This is not a theory nor a hypothesis.

    It's unbalanced speculation, nothing more. There's nothing wrong with speculation and wondering. At times, I wonder if our Universe is something that stands apart or something that exists within. I don't talk about it much because it's just idle speculation. It's not something we can test right now.
    If you want to discuss it, you must first recognize it as mostly baseless speculation and not science but philosophy.
    OK I agree with you....but two things:

    - Can you give any reasonings agains it?... there is any mainstream theory that deny what this article says?...if yes... please, tell me.

    - If you donīt propose any idea...then you donīt have any thing to prove or demostrate (!?)... please read the las point of the article...SEARCH FOR EVIDENDES ABOUT THE 3D RAINBOW...there you have some line to follow to prove it...and possible there will be more !!!
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    - Can you give any reasonings agains it?
    Irrelevant. No one can 'prove a negative.'
    The question is, can you provide any evidence for it?
    That is the proper question.
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    - If you donīt propose any idea...then you donīt have any thing to prove or demostrate (!?)
    Actually no, this applies to you, not to me.
    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And you're not providing ordinary evidence, even.

    What you are talking about is pure speculation. And there's nothing wrong with that. Many great thinkers begin with speculation.
    But be honest with what you're doing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    And one of the things that make me believe that the content of the article is correct, is that no one has been able to show any evidence or demostration contrary (against) to it.
    Do you realise that almost every person who come to these forums with their own "personal theory/idea" about the universe says exactly that?

    You can find hundreds of threads where people present an idea and then others explain in great detail exactly why it is wrong. Immediately after that the OP says, "so, if no one can prove me wrong ..." (*)

    Your previous threads followed exactly this pattern. And, if anyone can be bothered to answer the same questions again, I imagine this one will go the same way.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    You can find hundreds of threads where people present an idea and then others explain in great detail exactly why it is wrong. Immediately after that the OP says, "so, if no one can prove me wrong ..." (*)
    That is the problem....tha any body "explain in great detail exactly why it is wrong". ...did you?
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    OK..it is true...it is speculation.."And there's nothing wrong with that"...

    But yes I can prove that 2+2 is not 5...and you?
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    OK..it is true...it is speculation.."And there's nothing wrong with that"...

    But yes I can prove that 2+2 is not 5...and you?
    2+2 does not equal 5 is something we can work with. What is outside of the Universe is not something we can currently work with.
    I cannot "prove the idea wrong," and even if no one did (whether people that could exist or not) is irrelevant. Because whether someone's proven it wrong is a slapdash way of going about it.

    Look, do you believe in leprechauns until someone proves they don't exist?
    That makes no sense, does it?

    Sure with some things, some folks will show the obvious errors in it. Usually, with things already well understood. But leprechauns or what is outside of the universe is not well understood.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    OK Neverfly...I understand "all the contents of the artiche seems to be coherent...but has to be proved"...isnīt it?

    At the end of the article...SEARCH FOR EVIDENDES ABOUT THE 3D RAINBOW...there are some methodes to prove it...and possible there will be more of them!!!...it is a problem of time that could be proved ... or denied...
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    You can find hundreds of threads where people present an idea and then others explain in great detail exactly why it is wrong. Immediately after that the OP says, "so, if no one can prove me wrong ..." (*)
    That is the problem....tha any body "explain in great detail exactly why it is wrong". ...did you?
    Crank: "Prove me wrong!"
    Normal human being: "OK ... <detailed explanation of what is wrong with every single point raised>"
    Crank: "See, no one can prove me wrong!"

    Thanks for confirming my prediction and demonstrating that your behaviour perfectly fits that of a crank.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    You can find hundreds of threads where people present an idea and then others explain in great detail exactly why it is wrong. Immediately after that the OP says, "so, if no one can prove me wrong ..." (*)
    That is the problem....tha any body "explain in great detail exactly why it is wrong". ...did you?
    Crank: "Prove me wrong!"
    Normal human being: "OK ... <detailed explanation of what is wrong with every single point raised>"
    Crank: "See, no one can prove me wrong!"

    Thanks for confirming my prediction and demonstrating that your behaviour perfectly fits that of a crank.
    No Strange...I am not saying that this proposal is true...the only thing I say that is not wrong...and then could be a possibility to have into account for the future...it is just another hypotesis for a Whole Universe...that in the future will be proved if it is true ...or not !!!

    And in this article I also include different proposalls to check or prove it....

    But Iīll very glad if any body could:

    - Give any reasoning that could prove that any of the contents of the article is wrong or not true
    - Give any other methodes or way to prove or demostrate that it is true..or not
    - Any other positive opinion or suggestion

    But the only answer you all give are negative: "it is a shit!", "there are not evidences", "nothing new",."it is only a speculatin without foundation"...Please, be positive !!!
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    You have been given detail explanations as to why it doesn't make any sense. You chose to ignore them.

    Positive: it's very imaginative. (But not original)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    You have been given detail explanations as to why it doesn't make any sense. You chose to ignore them.
    Please, could you make to me a list resum of them?...ī. All explanations you give have been changed in the article (New Dimension, Laws are different at different levels,....)...If you read it now...it has been changed...but the main topics still are there ... because there arenīt detail explanations against them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Positive: it's very imaginative. (But not original)
    You say that is not original...OK ...please give to me any link to some similar proposal...I develope it...because I didnīt find any thing similar...I was and am looking for it....
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Please, could you make to me a list resum of them?...
    No. I am not going to trawl through all your old threads copying and pasting other people's comments. Go and re-read them yourself. I have no interest in helping someone who is not willing to learn some basic science.

    You say that is not original...OK ...please give to me any link to some similar proposal...
    Oh come on. Its just the old schoolboy idea: "Wow! what if an atom was like a little solar system! And wow! What if our solar system was an atom!"

    Most people grow out of that sort of nonsense when they are about 14.

    GO AND LEARN SOME SCIENCE.

    If you want to ask some intelligent questions, I am happy to answer them. But if you keep trying to relate every answer to this inane drivel, then I may not bother.

    Grow up. You have had one idea which has been shown to be meaningless. Time to move on. This level of obsession is quite worrying.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    There is not even a smidgeon of evidence to support your idea. There is no basis for believing that there is even a slight possibility it may be true. It does not, apparently, conflict with any established rules because the idea does not intersect with the real universe at any point.

    It is absolutely your responsibility to provide supporting evidence. In the absence of such evidence your unfounded idea has no value whatsoever.

    As a concept for an SF story it woul lack originality, but it be worth some minor attention and the absence of evidence would not be an obstacle. However the idea that this has any redeeming scientific value is laughable.

    I should like you to answer four questions:

    1. Have you seen in forums other people proposing theories about the 'true' nature of the universe?
    2. If so what do you think of those theories?
    3. What makes you think that with little formal education in physics and cosmology that you have acquired an insight that none of the greatest minds of the 20th Century, and early years of the 21st, have totally missed?
    4. Don't you think it's rather arrogant of you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    1. Have you seen in forums other people proposing theories about the 'true' nature of the universe?
    2. If so what do you think of those theories?
    I have often wondered this. Whenever I have asked, the "independent thinker" usually ignores it. Some will acknowledge ideas which are superficially similar to their own but which are "obviously" wrong in detail. I assume they think that all the others are as silly as we do.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    i repeat,if it was like this,pope john paul2 would have won a nobel.
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Junior epidecus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    268
    The truth is ... any person can conjure up his/her own interesting, poetic version for anything. And it will seem self-consistent.

    However, if it is not a serious endeavor with reasonable corroboration, then it simply shouldn't be taken for consideration.

    I could think many possibly things of the universe that seem cool or profound, but I am well aware that these are just personal ideas, not scientific hypotheses... far less to even consider them factual theories. Just whimsical possibilities to entertain the brain.
    Dis muthufukka go hard. -Quote
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    OK...OK...It is stupid...crasy...nosense...shit....childish idea ... arrogant ... crazy .... etc.....

    But nobody tell me why...only because I am not one of the greatest minds of the 20th Century....but STRANGE allready though about it when he was 14th...humans are amazing beings ....reality exceeds fiction...

    Weīll see in 20 years...please remember me !!!...
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Weīll see in 20 years...please remember me !!!...
    You got it.
    Quick question... Who are you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Junior epidecus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    OK...OK...It is stupid...crasy...nosense...shit....childish idea ... arrogant ... crazy .... etc.....
    Well, I wouldn't say all that. It's simply an unreasonable idea, and one may add flavor to that critique as harshly as he/she desires.

    But nobody tell me why
    You've been told repeatedly, actually. It's unreasonable because it lacks, well... reason. You are arbitrarily associating the nature of the universe with radiation spectra. In the process, you have conjured up a few stigma simply for the idea's self-integrity. You did not stem this off of observation, mathematical rigor, or educated questioning.

    It's just one big "What if the universe is...?!" idea grabbed out of thin air. This thought process is what you'd expect from curious children and adolescents. It's actually present in many people curious of the sciences, and it takes time to grow out of.
    Dis muthufukka go hard. -Quote
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by epidecus View Post
    The truth is ... any person can conjure up his/her own interesting, poetic version for anything. And it will seem self-consistent.

    However, if it is not a serious endeavor with reasonable corroboration, then it simply shouldn't be taken for consideration.

    I could think many possibly things of the universe that seem cool or profound, but I am well aware that these are just personal ideas, not scientific hypotheses... far less to even consider them factual theories. Just whimsical possibilities to entertain the brain.
    I am going to give you an example....

    Egypt 4.000 years ago...Emanuel & Argo are lying in the desert watching the stars in the night ... and :

    Emanuel tells Argo ... sometimes I have the feeling that the earth is round and revolves around the sun, while the moon revolves around the Earth".

    And Argo say: "it is stupid idea, I thought the same when I was 14th...but it is not possible to prove...so is stupid...and th earth is flat and every thing is roud it...till you cannot prove"

    Emanuel says: " OK what we can do to prove it?.... we need a boat and cross the sea"

    Argo: "Nothing because you are not one of the greatest minds of this Century...and nobody will listen you"

    Emanuel: "OK you are right...Better Iīll forget it...till some great mind will be able to realize it...and get the support to prove it"

    Finnally It was proved 3.500 years latter....
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    I am going to give you an example....

    Egypt 4.000 years ago...Emanuel & Argo are lying in the desert watching the stars in the night ... and :


    Finnally It was proved 3.500 years latter....
    Whatever, this is just a method of denial while you ignore the refutations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    dapiflo, will you at least answer these three questions?

    1. Have you seen in forums other people proposing theories about the 'true' nature of the universe?
    2. If so what do you think of those theories?
    3. What makes you think that with little formal education in physics and cosmology that you have acquired an insight that none of the greatest minds of the 20th Century, and early years of the 21st, have totally missed?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by epidecus View Post
    The truth is ... any person can conjure up his/her own interesting, poetic version for anything. And it will seem self-consistent.However, if it is not a serious endeavor with reasonable corroboration, then it simply shouldn't be taken for consideration.I could think many possibly things of the universe that seem cool or profound, but I am well aware that these are just personal ideas, not scientific hypotheses... far less to even consider them factual theories. Just whimsical possibilities to entertain the brain.
    I am going to give you an example....Egypt 4.000 years ago...Emanuel & Argo are lying in the desert watching the stars in the night ... and :Emanuel tells Argo ... sometimes I have the feeling that the earth is round and revolves around the sun, while the moon revolves around the Earth".And Argo say: "it is stupid idea, I thought the same when I was 14th...but it is not possible to prove...so is stupid...and th earth is flat and every thing is roud it...till you cannot prove"Emanuel says: " OK what we can do to prove it?.... we need a boat and cross the sea"Argo: "Nothing because you are not one of the greatest minds of this Century...and nobody will listen you"Emanuel: "OK you are right...Better Iīll forget it...till some great mind will be able to realize it...and get the support to prove it" Finnally It was proved 3.500 years latter....
    you are actually getting it...everyone curios has ideas like emmanuel but if agro was a professional or new more about existing ideas,he can't just jump on his feet and say yeah lets get a ship........people think and talk,but this things ain't taken serious if the person has not proved that he is serious.....try making a name for yourself by and observable occurrence,when you say this is the universe,people will atleast listen.
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    you are actually getting it...everyone curios has ideas like emmanuel but if agro was a professional or new more about existing ideas,he can't just jump on his feet and say yeah lets get a ship........people think and talk,but this things ain't taken serious if the person has not proved that he is serious.....try making a name for yourself by and observable occurrence,when you say this is the universe,people will atleast listen.
    Meh... I disagree. He used an example that today we know to be correct even if they didn't have certainty then... the evidence was there and observable. There weren't really scientists following the scientific method- there were Philosophers.
    However, observers examining the motions in the sky and ships coming over the horizon had inferred it thousands of years ago. Eratosthenes had even calculated to good accuracy the circumference of the globe about 2000 years ago.

    He then compared this example to his suggestion which is not only not inferred, but contradicts observation.

    A more accurate comparison would be the two in the fictional play as speculating about stars being great bonfires in the sky, set ablaze to keep the Gods warm at night. Doesn't match much observation, is highly speculative and not very scientific.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    i agree with neverfly! let us see it as if he still in the stone ages....and we are in the modern age....so he might have a case in the stonge age but not here.so my advice to him is to go back and state your idea clear....note;philosophy gives the rise to science.
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    dapiflo, will you at least answer these three questions?

    1. Have you seen in forums other people proposing theories about the 'true' nature of the universe?
    2. If so what do you think of those theories?
    3. What makes you think that with little formal education in physics and cosmology that you have acquired an insight that none of the greatest minds of the 20th Century, and early years of the 21st, have totally missed?
    I have been looking for it at internet...but is so long...Iīll will read ... and see.

    But ... please, could you make me an abstract...and give to me your opinion?
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by epidecus View Post
    The truth is ... any person can conjure up his/her own interesting, poetic version for anything. And it will seem self-consistent.However, if it is not a serious endeavor with reasonable corroboration, then it simply shouldn't be taken for consideration.I could think many possibly things of the universe that seem cool or profound, but I am well aware that these are just personal ideas, not scientific hypotheses... far less to even consider them factual theories. Just whimsical possibilities to entertain the brain.
    I am going to give you an example....Egypt 4.000 years ago...Emanuel & Argo are lying in the desert watching the stars in the night ... and :Emanuel tells Argo ... sometimes I have the feeling that the earth is round and revolves around the sun, while the moon revolves around the Earth".And Argo say: "it is stupid idea, I thought the same when I was 14th...but it is not possible to prove...so is stupid...and th earth is flat and every thing is roud it...till you cannot prove"Emanuel says: " OK what we can do to prove it?.... we need a boat and cross the sea"Argo: "Nothing because you are not one of the greatest minds of this Century...and nobody will listen you"Emanuel: "OK you are right...Better Iīll forget it...till some great mind will be able to realize it...and get the support to prove it" Finnally It was proved 3.500 years latter....
    you are actually getting it...everyone curios has ideas like emmanuel but if agro was a professional or new more about existing ideas,he can't just jump on his feet and say yeah lets get a ship........people think and talk,but this things ain't taken serious if the person has not proved that he is serious.....try making a name for yourself by and observable occurrence,when you say this is the universe,people will atleast listen.
    Ok...but nowadays it is not so easy to prove ideas...possible you will need particle accelerator, space radar network, ...and it needs a lot of fund... more than three boats like Colon...
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    you are actually getting it...everyone curios has ideas like emmanuel but if agro was a professional or new more about existing ideas,he can't just jump on his feet and say yeah lets get a ship........people think and talk,but this things ain't taken serious if the person has not proved that he is serious.....try making a name for yourself by and observable occurrence,when you say this is the universe,people will atleast listen.
    Meh... I disagree. He used an example that today we know to be correct even if they didn't have certainty then... the evidence was there and observable. There weren't really scientists following the scientific method- there were Philosophers.
    However, observers examining the motions in the sky and ships coming over the horizon had inferred it thousands of years ago. Eratosthenes had even calculated to good accuracy the circumference of the globe about 2000 years ago.

    He then compared this example to his suggestion which is not only not inferred, but contradicts observation.

    A more accurate comparison would be the two in the fictional play as speculating about stars being great bonfires in the sky, set ablaze to keep the Gods warm at night. Doesn't match much observation, is highly speculative and not very scientific.
    Why we donīt forget about if we are the greatest minds of this Century... and we free discuss the contents of the following article...as we were?

    M-DIMENSIOM
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Why we donīt forget about if we are the greatest minds of this Century... and we free discuss the contents of the following article...as we were?

    M-DIMENSIOM
    No.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo;373731Why we donīt forget about if we are the greatest minds of this Century... and we free discuss the contents of the following article...as we were?

    [URL="http://matryoshka-dimension.blogspot.com.es/"
    M-DIMENSIOM[/URL]
    Ok. You can't shine shit. That's all the discussion it deserves.

    Why would you think that this time there'd be a different opinion from last time?
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    dapiflo, will you at least answer these three questions?

    1. Have you seen in forums other people proposing theories about the 'true' nature of the universe?
    2. If so what do you think of those theories?
    3. What makes you think that with little formal education in physics and cosmology that you have acquired an insight that none of the greatest minds of the 20th Century, and early years of the 21st, have totally missed?
    I have been looking for it at internet...but is so long...Iīll will read ... and see.

    But ... please, could you make me an abstract...and give to me your opinion?
    dapiflo I am not asking if you have seen others put forward a 'theory' similar to yours, I am asking if you have seen anyone put forward a 'theory' that seeks to explain how the universe works.

    There are hundreds of these. They are different from your theory. The authors of this theory are convinced they have the correct 'theory'. Now what makes you think of all these hundreds of 'theories' that yours i the correct one? And also, I ask you again, what makes you think that with little formal education in physics and cosmology that you have acquired an insight that none of the greatest minds of the 20th Century, and early years of the 21st, have totally missed?

    You asked me to give you an opinion, I take you to mean an opinion about your 'theory'. I thought I already had, but here it is: bollocks. It is simplistic, childish, unimaginative, and unsupported by even a picogram of evidence. I regret that I have to use such harsh words, but your obsession with such a basically silly idea is doing you no good. I hope to shock some sense into you, since I hate to see anyone wasting their time on trivial nonsense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Ok..I will take into account the opinion of all you that are some of the greatest minds of the 20th Century, and early years of the 21st... but it is silly that nobody could give any clear reasoning....only harsh words that show the cultural and educational level of the persons....
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    but it is silly that nobody could give any clear reasoning....
    Again: You have been given many good reasons why it makes no sense. I seem to remember there were some pretty detailed explanations provided on BAUT/CosmoQuest. I am not going to go back and re-read them, but perhaps you should.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Why we donīt forget about if we are the greatest minds of this Century... and we free discuss the contents of the following article...as we were? .....
    .....
    Ok..I will take into account the opinion of all you that are some of the greatest minds of the 20th Century, and early years of the 21st... but it is silly that nobody could give any clear reasoning....only harsh words that show the cultural and educational level of the persons....
    Let's get something clear. This is not, repeat not, a forum of working cosmologists or similar scientists working at the leading edge of science theory.

    This is a science forum where we discuss news and questions raised about science.

    1.a We do not do science here.

    1.b We have no capacity for gathering data, for collaborating on papers, or any other genuinely scientific activity that might happen in a university or similar scientific institution.

    2. Nor do we have a kitchen where people can gather after a party to lean on benches or appliances while drunkenly ruminating until 4 am on cosmological theories that the universe could be flat, spherical or W-shaped.

    I and most other people think that the ideas you propose are in category 2.
    You seem to think we can treat it as a real scientific investigation as in category 1.

    We can do neither of these things in this forum.
    Even if we wanted to - and we don't.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    do you want us to come and right in your note tab or what ever you used in your idea?
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    do you want us to come and write in your note tab or what ever you used in your idea?
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Ok..I will take into account the opinion of all you that are some of the greatest minds of the 20th Century, and early years of the 21st... but it is silly that nobody could give any clear reasoning....only harsh words that show the cultural and educational level of the persons....
    I find it offensive that you deliberatly misinterpret my words. I have not claimed, and no reasonable reading of my posts could lead you to think I have claimed, that the members on this site are "the greatest minds of the 20th Century".

    What I have stated is that your silly ideas run counter to the theories that have been proposed, developed, tested and validated by those who do have minds of that calibre. And you have the audacity to think your pathetic, half baked nonsense is superior to those theories. I ask you again. What makes you think you have such vast intellectual capacity and stunning insight?

    You have been given amazing leeway on the forum to spout and promote patent nonsense. I think you owe the forum membership the decency to answer my question. Are you decent enough to do so?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    galt,you should'nt lose you temper.
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I didn't. Don't confuse vigorous expression of thoughts with loss of control. Don't confuse rhetoric with reality. (Don't confuse Warri with Escravos.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    but it is silly that nobody could give any clear reasoning....
    Again: You have been given many good reasons why it makes no sense. I seem to remember there were some pretty detailed explanations provided on BAUT/CosmoQuest. I am not going to go back and re-read them, but perhaps you should.
    Yes...you are right STRANGE...I learn a lot of mainstream with you and SHAULA...(and others)... but what do youthing about the different system to get evidences I include...(for small scales I forgot the Particle Accelerator...I have to include it...
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Why we donīt forget about if we are the greatest minds of this Century... and we free discuss the contents of the following article...as we were? .....
    .....
    Ok..I will take into account the opinion of all you that are some of the greatest minds of the 20th Century, and early years of the 21st... but it is silly that nobody could give any clear reasoning....only harsh words that show the cultural and educational level of the persons....
    Let's get something clear. This is not, repeat not, a forum of working cosmologists or similar scientists working at the leading edge of science theory.

    This is a science forum where we discuss news and questions raised about science.

    1.a We do not do science here.

    1.b We have no capacity for gathering data, for collaborating on papers, or any other genuinely scientific activity that might happen in a university or similar scientific institution.

    2. Nor do we have a kitchen where people can gather after a party to lean on benches or appliances while drunkenly ruminating until 4 am on cosmological theories that the universe could be flat, spherical or W-shaped.

    I and most other people think that the ideas you propose are in category 2.
    You seem to think we can treat it as a real scientific investigation as in category 1.

    We can do neither of these things in this forum.
    Even if we wanted to - and we don't.
    OK..adelady...what about discussing about different systems and methodes of detecting possible signals from out of Our Known Universe (Larger or Smaller)...EM or Gravitational waves....Cosmic microwave background radiation ( bobble collisions)...other...
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    OK..adelady...what about discussing about different systems and methods of detecting possible signals from out of Our Known Universe (Larger or Smaller)..
    from out of Our Known Universe? Did you read what I wrote?

    You'd have to provide some real citations from reputable journals to convince me that this is not yet another speculative adventure outside the bounds of science as we know it, as scientists do it, as journals publish it.

    To. Be. Perfectly. Clear. Conjectures and speculations and imagination generally might lead to formulating hypotheses which can then be tested according to normal scientific processes. A conjecture or a speculation is not science and never has been science.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    galt i was just trying to check you,friendly and not the other way round.
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    OK ... I refrain definitely ... it is clear that it is absolutely impossible to maintain a friendly and reasonable discussion about possible methods, technologies or systems that allow us to expand our scalar field (since 10 exp -35 to 10 exp + 27 meters). .... It is taboo among scientists to comment and to discuss topics that have not been properly approved by the greatest minds of the 20th Century, or early years of the 21st... incredible but true!....and also very sad and painful...
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Stop misinterpreting. Please answer these questions. If you choose not to I shall be asking the moderator team to look at your behaviour here. I will not moderate this thread, or your approach, since I have been actively involved in this discussion. Please avoid this by answering the questions. I shall rephrase them in the hope of making them clearer to you.

    1. Do you understand that you are one of humdreds of people claiming to have an important new insight as to how the universe works? If you were not previously aware of this, do you now understand that ideas such as you claim are extremely common?

    2. What is it that distinguishes your ideas from all those other ones? Why should we believe you have a valuable insight, when none of the others have? (And in many cases their insights, if correct, would completely disprove your insight.)

    3. How is it that you have found it possible to have this insight when the greatest minds (etc) have not had that insight? Are you aware that the advances in science have been made by highly intelligent, dedicated men who first learned all there was to know about their chosen field? How do you expect to build menaing on ignorance?


    I remind you - fail to make a genuine attempt to answer these questions and I shall be requesting that your participation here be examined by the moderator team.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    come on and defend your idea,mr idealist.
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    galt am afraid you are wrong....how can you say they learned everything that there is to know abt their fields? who told you einstein knew everything about light before his 1905 wonderful year.
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    the idea that a single man knows everything about something is folly.man in is natural self is dependent on another man.we call ourselves scientist,physicist,astronuts,philosophers and preist,etc. but how far can we go without the help of our brothers?
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    galt you would'nt have made it here without your brothers....all great minds were once feabile minds....if they could not thoes not mean anyone else cannot...it is never bad having an idea and assuming the great mind did not have thesame thing...if that was the case,einstein would have never supercide newton.
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    dapifo your idea is not accepted,not because you are not a great mind but because there is no proof,no math....work on yourself if you know you are wish for stars.
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    galt am afraid you are wrong....how can you say they learned everything that there is to know abt their fields? who told you einstein knew everything about light before his 1905 wonderful year.
    Pay attention. There is an implicit "that was known at that time". It was Einstein's detailed knowledge of Maxwell and Lorentz and the others which enabled him to have the insights he did which thereby extended his field.

    galt you would'nt have made it here without your brothers
    You are starting to annoy me. You are not putting words in my mouth, but you seem to wish to put attitudes in my mind. Where have I indicated that I made it here alone? Where did I indicate I made it anywhere? This is not about me. This is not about my skills, or my idea. This is about a trivial piece of nonsense and an attempt to get its author to recognise that he is wasting his time. Encouraging stupidity is not a socially responsible action.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    It is taboo among scientists to comment and to discuss topics that have not been properly approved by the greatest minds of the 20th Century, or early years of the 21st
    Nonsense. It is just that nobody wants to waste more than 5 minutes discussing an idea which is prima facie meaningless nonsense.

    "But I thought of it so it must be a good idea."

    What if I kept insisting that everyone keep discussing my idea that "all matter that falls into a black hole turns into chocolate" (You can't prove it wrong!)? Why would anyone take such an idea seriously? But it is just as rational and well-thought out as your idea.

    Give it up.

    Move on.

    Grow up.

    Go and study some basic science. It is a fascinating subject, I promise you. But it does take a certain amount of hard work. And the need to develop critical thinking skills (which you currently seem to be slightly lacking)

    Or, if you just want to make up silly ideas for people to read, go and write science fiction stories.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post

    1. Do you understand that you are one of humdreds of people claiming to have an important new insight as to how the universe works? If you were not previously aware of this, do you now understand that ideas such as you claim are extremely common?.
    Really I thought that several possibilities like this were handled by scientifics for the Universe..and that several research projects were going on trying to clarify them...that is the only thing that I am trying to do, ...to have a reasonable discussion with normal scientifics about them:

    1.- The limmits of Our Known Universe nowadays are not the absolute limmits....
    2.- ...and we have to tray to wider them by very complex research (possibly taking into account more dimensions (scales)...Calabi-yau (6D) for small dimensions and 5D for large dimensions (scales).
    3.- Whit type of technologies...could we use to do and prove it ?

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    2. What is it that distinguishes your ideas from all those other ones? Why should we believe you have a valuable insight, when none of the others have? (And in many cases their insights, if correct, would completely disprove your insight.).
    As I told you before...I though that thi idea was not original..and that a lot of theories were studing it...I only asked for these existing theories...but my surprse was that nothing exist about...so I would like to comment them...with reasonable peoble...but...you see the results !!!(???)

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    3. How is it that you have found it possible to have this insight when the greatest minds (etc) have not had that insight? Are you aware that the advances in science have been made by highly intelligent, dedicated men who first learned all there was to know about their chosen field? How do you expect to build menaing on ignorance?.
    merumario answer you by myself in post 67. ..Do you know what mean team work?

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I remind you - fail to make a genuine attempt to answer these questions and I shall be requesting that your participation here be examined by the moderator team.
    Done....
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    To see further than anyone has seen before, you need to stand on the shoulders of giants.
    epidecus likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    dapifo,
    thank you for your response. I believe that you actually think that you answered my three groups of questions. I have tried to help you, first with reasoned argument and then shock tactics. Nothing has worked. Further discussion with you is fruitless.

    Done.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Ok Galt I respect your opinions and advice ... but also just ask that you respect my ideas and proposals ... however bizarre they may seem .... sure there will be someone that will help to take a wider vision of the universe ... although it is not a proposal accepted by mainstream...these discussions help me to nderstand better the Universe and its the underlaying laws....thnaks for your help...
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    these discussions help me to nderstand better the Universe and its the underlaying laws....thnaks for your help...
    Going about it backwards is how you learn? You learn by throwing out ideas, being told what's wrong with them, arguing with those responses and demanding to be proved wrong- and this is how you learn about the Universe and gain understanding of the "underlaying laws?"

    Seems simpler to pick up a book and read it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    these discussions help me to nderstand better the Universe and its the underlaying laws....thnaks for your help...
    Going about it backwards is how you learn? You learn by throwing out ideas, being told what's wrong with them, arguing with those responses and demanding to be proved wrong- and this is how you learn about the Universe and gain understanding of the "underlaying laws?"

    Seems simpler to pick up a book and read it.
    Wnich are yours studies: knowledge and speciality ?... and yur current job?
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    but also just ask that you respect my ideas and proposals ... however bizarre they may seem ....
    Why should any respect be given bizarre ideas presented with no rigor, formalism, mathematics, evidence, or reasoned argument?
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    but also just ask that you respect my ideas and proposals ... however bizarre they may seem ....
    Why should any respect be given bizarre ideas presented with no rigor, formalism, mathematics, evidence, or reasoned argument?
    AlexG...Wnich are yours studies: knowledge and speciality ?... and yur current job?
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    but also just ask that you respect my ideas and proposals ... however bizarre they may seem ....
    Why should any respect be given bizarre ideas presented with no rigor, formalism, mathematics, evidence, or reasoned argument?
    Just thought that was worth repeating.

    Dapifo, how much "respect" are you going to give to my Chocolate Black Holes theory? Are you going to try and disprove it? Are you going to help me come up with the math and experiments to confirm it? If not, why not?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    but also just ask that you respect my ideas and proposals ... however bizarre they may seem ....
    Why should any respect be given bizarre ideas presented with no rigor, formalism, mathematics, evidence, or reasoned argument?
    Just thought that was worth repeating.

    Dapifo, how much "respect" are you going to give to my Chocolate Black Holes theory? Are you going to try and disprove it? Are you going to help me come up with the math and experiments to confirm it? If not, why not?
    STRAGE it is absurd to try to compare your theory about "Chocolate Black Holes theory"... and the "flying pink elephants in a black hole" .. with my proposal that the "scale of our universe strip may be wider over time" ... and to ask about systems and technology to prove it...Do you really see any similarity?
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    STRAGE it is absurd to try to compare your theory about "Chocolate Black Holes theory"... and the "flying pink elephants in a black hole" .. with my proposal that the "scale of our universe strip may be wider over time" ... and to ask about systems and technology to prove it...Do you really see any similarity?
    Can you show exactly how they are different?
    Do you have more mathematics in your theory than me?
    Do you have more experimental evidence for your theory than me?
    Do you have more support from established theory than me?
    Is mine easier to disprove than yours?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    STRAGE it is absurd to try to compare your theory about "Chocolate Black Holes theory"... and the "flying pink elephants in a black hole" .. with my proposal that the "scale of our universe strip may be wider over time" ... and to ask about systems and technology to prove it...Do you really see any similarity?
    Can you show exactly how they are different?
    Do you have more mathematics in your theory than me?
    Do you have more experimental evidence for your theory than me?
    Do you have more support from established theory than me?
    Is mine easier to disprove than yours?
    OK,OK..Strange..I agree with you...If you want I can help you to look for systems to prve your "Chocolate Black Holes theory"...do you have any idea how to start ?
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    OK,OK..Strange..I agree with you...
    So you agree that they are both utterly stupid ideas with no basis in reality?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    OK,OK..Strange..I agree with you...
    So you agree that they are both utterly stupid ideas with no basis in reality?
    No absolutly NO...they are things absolute different..!!!....STRANGE ..the strage is that you donīt realize it....
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    NO...they are things absolute different..!!!....STRANGE ..the strage is that you donīt realize it....
    So explain.

    This is a serious question.

    Exactly WHY are they different? What makes your idea more worthy of respect and consideration than mine?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Junior epidecus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    To see further than anyone has seen before, you need to stand on the shoulders of giants.
    I absolutely love it. Is that derived from Newton?
    Dis muthufukka go hard. -Quote
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Yes, Newton once wrote in a letter, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants" although it seems the phrase was first used in the 12th century.

    Dapifo, this is a reference to the fact that to further science, it is necessary to build upon the work of those who have gone before you, rather than ignore it.
    Strange and epidecus like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Dapifo, this is a reference to the fact that to further science, it is necessary to build upon the work of those who have gone before you, rather than ignore it.
    Quite. Which is why I keep asking dapifo to learn some science instead of just making up fairy stories that he likes.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by epidecus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    To see further than anyone has seen before, you need to stand on the shoulders of giants.
    I absolutely love it. Is that derived from Newton?
    Why do you supose that I am not standing on the shoulders of giants.?
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    NO...they are things absolute different..!!!....STRANGE ..the strage is that you donīt realize it....
    So explain.

    This is a serious question.

    Exactly WHY are they different? What makes your idea more worthy of respect and consideration than mine?
    Any clid could answer your question...it is just a problem of comun sense...do you have it?
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Yes, Newton once wrote in a letter, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants" although it seems the phrase was first used in the 12th century.

    Dapifo, this is a reference to the fact that to further science, it is necessary to build upon the work of those who have gone before you, rather than ignore it.
    SpeedFreef donīt be freaky please....to understan my proposals is required a minimmum of comun sense and physics knouledge... who are you to discuss my proposals???... please, intrduce your self !!!
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    NO...they are things absolute different..!!!....STRANGE ..the strage is that you donīt realize it....
    So explain.

    This is a serious question.

    Exactly WHY are they different? What makes your idea more worthy of respect and consideration than mine?
    Any clid could answer your question...it is just a problem of comun sense...do you have it?
    That's (part of) the problem. Common sense is absolutely useless. You think your idea has some value based on your "common sense". It doesn't and you are unable to see that.

    It has exactly as much value as my theory. As proved by the fact that you cannot provide any objective reason to prefer one over the other.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    NO...they are things absolute different..!!!....STRANGE ..the strage is that you donīt realize it....
    So explain.

    This is a serious question.

    Exactly WHY are they different? What makes your idea more worthy of respect and consideration than mine?
    Any clid could answer your question...it is just a problem of comun sense...do you have it?
    That's (part of) the problem. Common sense is absolutely useless. You think your idea has some value based on your "common sense". It doesn't and you are unable to see that.

    It has exactly as much value as my theory. As proved by the fact that you cannot provide any objective reason to prefer one over the other.
    Why do you not answer reasoning my post http://www.thescienceforum.com/physi...tml#post374766
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Why do you supose that I am not standing on the shoulders of giants.?
    Because you seem to be ignoring the work of those who have gone before you, rather than building upon it.

    You need to research topological spaces and manifolds for starters.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Why do you not answer reasoning my post http://www.thescienceforum.com/physi...tml#post374766
    I did. In the post immediately before and immediately after. THERE IS NO 5D SPACE.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Why do you supose that I am not standing on the shoulders of giants.?
    Because you seem to be ignoring the work of those who have gone before you, rather than building upon it.

    You need to research topological spaces and manifolds for starters.
    Please, could you introduce your self...and tell to me your background... I think you are also not very expert...are you an student?
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Why do you not answer reasoning my post http://www.thescienceforum.com/physi...tml#post374766
    I did. In the post immediately before and immediately after. THERE IS NO 5D SPACE.
    NO...you jast said...that there are not EVIDENCES of 5D !!!...that is very differet ...
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    NO...you jast said...that there are not EVIDENCES of 5D !!!...that is very differet ...
    Not in science it isn't. (Not that you will understand that.)

    If you want to introduce five-dimensional spacetime, you will have to start by replacing all of relativity theory and therefore a large part of quantum physics. Good luck with that.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    NO...you jast said...that there are not EVIDENCES of 5D !!!...that is very differet ...
    Not in science it isn't. (Not that you will understand that.)

    If you want to introduce five-dimensional spacetime, you will have to start by replacing all of relativity theory and therefore a large part of quantum physics. Good luck with that.
    What do you mean?... Do you know about the Calabi-yau 6D shapes?...SR/GR and QM donīt say any thing about the dimensions out of OUR UNIVERSE.

    OUR UNIVERSE (please read the definition in Technologies to wider the current limmits of Our Universe) is 4D shape...then, if mre universes exist out there...the nex level has to be 5D.."iit s elemental my dear STRANGE"....
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Understanding the Rainbow
    By question for you in forum Physics
    Replies: 103
    Last Post: December 9th, 2012, 01:45 PM
  2. Global Universe is like a 3D Rainbow or Matryoshka dolls
    By dapifo in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: July 29th, 2012, 05:50 PM
  3. Rainbow Art - Thin Film Interference
    By CelticMadScientist in forum Art and Culture
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: October 3rd, 2011, 03:43 PM
  4. End of the rainbow observed! Explanation?
    By scientstphilosophertheist in forum Physics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: November 1st, 2007, 10:17 AM
  5. It's a Rainbow Party!
    By Coffee in forum Art and Culture
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 17th, 2005, 11:49 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •